Last night President Obama gave a press conference - which I watched because I'll do anything to get 'American Idol' off the air!Overall, it was as slick as everything we've come to expect from the Obama administration - although it was fairly obvious when he was improvising answers and when he was just reading off his teleprompter.
Some of the most telling moments - when you can see how confident Obama really is - came between the questions and answers, when he bantered blithely with the journalists. He's a smooth guy, that Barack!
I gathered two things from Obama's conference:
First off, I can see both the cynical and practical aspects of his upcoming budget and its trillion dollar spending plan.
Obama justified this spending by highlighting how fragile America's infrastructure is - and he's absolutely right. I've mentioned in this blog before how America seems completely jerry-rigged to me.
The problem with a traditionally capitalist society like ours is that private industry doesn't want to spend their profits developing infrastructure. This means things like the electricity grid are hopelessly primitive (explaining why a fallen branch knocked out the electricity of the entire Eastern Seaboard in 2003.)
I'm no fan of socialism, but I do identify that this lack of infrastructure development is always going to be the Achilles heel of privatized industry.
Just compare the railway networks of France and Britain. The French one is subsidized to the tune of millions of Euros - but is the envy of the world. The British rail network, on the other hand, is a crumbling joke.
Likewise, America's roads, bridges, public buildings and networks have been left to crumble for decades. 'They'll do,' is the motto - and they will, until events like the bridge collapse in Minneapolis highlight the fact that they should have been fixed years ago.
So Obama's trillion dollar spending package will benefit all of America, no matter how unpopular it is. Obama was absolutely correct when he said that America needed to invest in industry, education, science and technology - otherwise India and China would eclipse us in a few years.
What was slightly less salubrious was the timeline of Obama's deficit slashing. He has boasted that he'll halve America's deficit in the next four years. His current budget suggests he'll do just that (in time for election season.)
However, five, six and seven years from now, the deficit is forecast to grow again (as Obama doesn't have a reelection to worry about.)
It was a cynical little ploy by the administration and it will be interesting to see how it plays out in 2012. However, that's still mitigated by the fact (which Obama incessantly reminded us of) that his administration inherited America's current deficit disaster. Whatever progress he makes reducing that nightmare would presumably be more effective than the Republican's spendhappy-silliness that created it.
The only big question mark over the whole thing were these carbon offset trade caps.
These seem a bit woolly to me. It's difficult to remain competitive in the world economy when you're tying your hands behind your back with trade caps. Added to that, I'm not sure the science (or politics) of this tactic really make sense to me. I think these trade caps are difficult to justify given the fact that India and China are both churning out pollution at a prodigious rate (which is propelling their unprecedented profitability.)
I will have to do more research.
All in all, however, Obama gave a convincing conference that still leaves me confident about his ability to govern the country during this difficult time. As he told the journalists, his focus is 'fixing the economy.' That's something we should all hope he's successful at.
10 comments:
My favorite part:
Q: On AIG, why did you wait -- why did you wait days to come out and express that outrage? It seems like the action is coming out of New York and the Attorney General's Office. It took you days to come public with Secretary Geithner and say, look, we're outraged. Why did it take so long?
OBAMA: It took us a couple of days because I like to know what I'm talking about before I speak, you know? (Laughter.)
Sorry. You can't make a grammatical error when commenting on a speech!
Anyway, the biggest thing I took away was that now we have a President who really does take time to understand the issues, an when he discusses them, we can actually follow what he says, (even if you don't agree). There are far fewer instances where I come away saying "What?"
I agree Expat.
You certainly don't go away asking 'What?', he makes it very clear he's about to screw us as a nation.
OK, had fun with the 'I agree' swerve on Roland, but lets be real here.
He does not take the time to understand the issues. He has a very simple litmus test for most of his decisions.
Was Bush for it? Then I'm against it.
Not good policy!
http://www.ckurl.com/post/2009/03/11/Bush-Opposing-it-doesne28099t-make-it-right.aspx
You said, "America's roads, bridges, public buildings and networks have been left to crumble for decades. 'They'll do,' is the motto - and they will, until events like the bridge collapse in Minneapolis highlight the fact that they should have been fixed years ago."
The bridge in Minneapolis isn't a good one for your example. The bridge didn't fall due to a lack of attention. In fact, the 35W bridge which was built in the 1960s had received regular inspections and periodic (scheduled) maintenance and repaving. The bridge fell due to an unnoticed design flaw - the gusset plates that connect portions of the bridge were only half the thickness they should have been. Work was being done on the bridge when, unfortunately, the added weight of maintenance vehicles coupled with piles of construction equipment and mounds of materials - all at one end of the bridge - overloaded the support structure. In a matter of seconds, the entire bridge came down. No one realized this design flaw until the subsequent investigation following the bridge's collapse.
I don't doubt that roads and bridges throughout this country are in need of attention. Unfortunately, only about 5% of the ~$800B stimulus package recently passed by congress will go towards actual infrastructure work.
Lets also look at this another way. I don't think the crumbling roads are because corporations won't fix them, but its because it is managed by the government! Look at the telephone companies, they were allowed to monetize the cables they lay so when the need to upgrade to fiber optics came, they had incentive to run the wire.
So why a company won't rebuild a road way for free, imagine if a company could monetize a specific bit of roads (get a large share of the tax we pay when we fill up, etc...), they would be in tip top shape.
Then you have to throw the crazy environmentalist. Stop using coal... but pay millions of dollars to update a small area's grid because of environmental hoops they have to jump through.
Hey Bob! Hey CK!
I hate to say it, but I think you guys have been drinking the Kool Aid.
Roads are an excellent example - the fact that they're crappy in America has nothing to do with them being run by the government, but the roadways being chronically underfunded for decades. Republicans find billions for foreign wars, but nothing for roads... And, trust me, they are SHOCKING compared to roads in Europe. I'm not saying paying 10% more tax is WORTH smooth, slick roads like they have in France, but the current pot-holed perils are a disgrace. My old car popped a tyre on the highway going over a pothole.
The 35W bridge collapsed because the underfunded highway agencies, instead of spending money to improve things, merely increased the amount of traffic on it until the weight became an issue and blew the gusset plates (which were too small anyway - the problem with accepting the lowest bid for things.)
As for the assertion the bridge passed inspections for 40 years - tommyrot. The NTSB determined that inspectors did NOT routinely check that safety features were functional. Another case of underfunding of infrastructure.
Republican governments spend money where it's not needed and forget the essentials.
As for private industry... Just look at the electrics. I drive down the highway and see row after row of telegraph poles, dangling with wires. It's inefficient, ugly and unsafe (how many people get electrocuted every year?)
In Europe, the power lines are underground - a MASSIVE initial expense, but makes the power grid more secure and cheaper to operate in the long run.
HOWEVER, in America, private industry is so obsessed with quarterly returns that they'd rather soak up the costs of maintaining the crumbling infrastructure than spend the money to develop it (at the cost of one or two quarterly gains.)
I said before, I'm not a fan of socialism, but private industry alone CAN'T be trusted to run the infrastructure. All they're capable of doing it running it into the ground.
Roland,
Your assertion that the NTSB investigation determined that bridge inspectors didn’t routinely check that safety features were functional on the collapsed 35W bridge in Minneapolis because of underfunding is patently false. The summary page from the final NTSB report states:
“The report concludes that the bridge collapsed because of the failure of undersized gusset plates, which help connect steel beams. The report says the plates failed under stress from construction materials, rush-hour traffic and modifications made to the bridge over the years. The report says that current federal and state reviews procedures aren't adequate to detect design errors in bridges. “
If you wish to dispute the NTSB report – fine and well. However, that bridge had received regularly scheduled inspections throughout its existence – a fact that is indisputable as the NTSB documents those inspections.
Your statement that the 35W bridge’s collapse is “another case of underfunding of infrastructure” coupled with, “Republican governments spend money where its not needed and forget the essentials” simply underscores your malice toward conservative thought (which is fine and well) and that you are indeed a proponent of “big government” (which, again, is fine and well).
Perhaps we as a nation should be shelving out more money for infrastructure. I’m not necessarily disagreeing. I’d like to think that it would be possible to have an informed and intelligent discussion as to the merits of increased spending.
One last thought about “republican governments”; which branch of the government appropriates the money? Since the 1950s, when the bulk of the interstate highway was built, which party has been responsible for government appropriations? Would it be fair to say, then, that the party mostly in control of government appropriations the most has the most blame for the failure to maintain adequate infrastructure?
The NTSB report absolutely confirms what I said - that the consensus in America is to 'make do' with the crumbling infrastructure they have - with devastating results.
A 2003 photo inspection revealed the structural gussets were buckling - http://www.startribune.com/local/16927626.html
Nothing was done. In fact, the traffic on the bridge was increased.
As for whose to 'blame' for the spectacular underfunding - I was blithe to blame the Republicans. It's the Washington mentality in general. I just object to the hypocrisy of attacking Democrat spending after Bush's administration slid up trillions further into debt.
As for the roads - they're meant to be self funding, through gas tax and tolls. The question to be asked now is: "Is that sufficient?" I think the answer is no.
And I don't think RAISING taxes is the answer. I think finding money from one place (like, the war) and using it where it's needed (like, the roads) is ultimately better for America.
We're spending more taxpayer money rebuilding Iraq than we are keeping our own house in order.
Post a Comment